Australian Standard 1940

Common mistakes with AS 1940 Compliance

AS 1940:2017 covers the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, including diesel and many oils (depending on their classification and flash point).


In Queensland, compliance is primarily driven by the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) and the Hazardous Chemicals Code of Practice. While AS 1940 is not explicitly mandated in all circumstances, it is widely adopted as the accepted benchmark and is often required by Environmental Authorities, internal standards, Environmental Management Plans, and site procedures.


In addition, Section 357 of the WHS Regulation 2011 (Qld) requires that where there is a risk of a spill or leak of a hazardous chemical, appropriate spill containment must be provided.


AS 1940 is a detailed standard, and full compliance on operational sites can be challenging. However, there are several recurring issues that are frequently overlooked.


1. Portable bunding is not suitable for permanent storage

Portable bunding units such as bunded pallets and flexible bunds are commonly used across construction and operational sites.

However, these are not intended for permanent storage applications. AS 1940 makes it clear that portable bunding units are not suitable as a long-term bunding solution.


If containers are stored in a fixed location on an ongoing basis, a compliant permanent bunded area should be provided.


2. Bund capacity – 110% vs 100% + 25% (commonly misunderstood)

Bunding requirements under AS 1940 depend on the type of storage:

  • Bulk tanks: bund capacity should be at least 110% of the largest tank
  • Package storage (drums, IBCs): bund capacity should be at least:

- 100% of the largest container, plus

- 25% of the total stored volume


A common compliance issue is applying the 110% rule to IBCs or drum storage, which can significantly underestimate the required bund capacity.

Importantly, bunding requirements are based on container capacity, not the current volume stored. Nominally empty containers should still be considered from a capacity perspective unless they have been cleaned and decommissioned.


3. Rainwater reduces effective bund capacity

Bunds must maintain their required effective containment capacity at all times.  Where bunds are not protected from rainfall, accumulated stormwater reduces available containment volume, which can result in non-compliance during a spill event.


Rainwater in bunds must be appropriately managed, including:

  • controlled drainage via treatment (e.g. oily water separator), or
  • removal and disposal to a suitably licenced facility (testing may be required), or
  • testing prior to release (where appropriate)


Uncontrolled discharge of bund water to ground is a common compliance issue.


4. Undersized bunds for IBC storage

A frequently observed issue is an IBC stored on a small bund (e.g. 30cm deep shallow bund), often uncovered.


In many cases, these setups:

  • do not meet the 100% + 25% capacity requirement, and
  • are subject to rainwater infiltration (being uncovered)


These arrangements are rarely compliant when assessed against AS 1940.


5. Other common site issues (not limited to AS 1940)

While not strictly AS 1940 requirements, the following are also key risk areas in fuel and oil management:

  • Missing or open bungs in oily waste bins
  • Inappropriate detergents used in washdown areas (non quick-break)
  • Oily water separators not operating or maintained correctly


Final note

Most sites have some form of bunding in place, but the detail of how it is designed, used, and maintained is where compliance gaps typically arise.


Understanding the difference between tank and package storage requirements, and ensuring bunds maintain their effective capacity in service, will address a large proportion of common issues.


Reach out if we can assist you in improving your management of flammable and combustible liquids. 


Last updated 1 April 2026. 


This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.



By Lisel Dingley March 29, 2026
We regularly see sites assume that because they hold approval for an ERA, they can undertake anything that falls within that ERA. That’s not how Environmental Authorities work. An EA does not approve the full scope of what an ERA could include. It approves what you applied for — including the way the activity is undertaken, the infrastructure used, the controls you committed to and the scale and intensity you described. Sometimes, there are some obvious limitations set by your EA per ERA. For example, you may hold ERA 54 Mechanical Waste Processing, Threshold 2 (general waste), therefore, if you want to take regulated waste, you know that you aren't licenced to do so, as it is Threshold 3 & 4. It's the more subtle changes where things can come unstuck, particularly in the waste management ERA space. What Your EA Actually Covers When your EA is granted, it is based on a specific proposal. That proposal includes: The activity itself Where it will occur What materials or wastes are involved How it will be undertaken What controls are in place to manage environmental risk That combination forms the risk profile that was assessed and approved. It is not a blanket approval for all variations of that activity/ERA. Where Sites Get Caught Out Most non-compliances in this space are not deliberate. They come from operational changes that seem minor at the time: Moving an activity to a more convenient location Scaling up volumes Changing inputs slightly Adjusting how something is managed day-to-day Individually, these can seem insignificant. But from a regulatory perspective, they can fundamentally change the risk to environmental values — which means they fall outside what was originally approved. Example 1 – Crushing Concrete under ERA 54 You are approved to undertake crushing concrete under ERA 54. What was approved: Crushing within an enclosed building Dust suppression sprays on the machine Settled dust wet cleaned within bunded area, and vac truck removed offsite to be disposed at facility that is licenced to accept it You now want to undertake crushing outdoors. It’s still crushing — so it feels like it should be fine. But the risk profile is no longer the same: Dust is no longer contained and can travel offsite Fine material can be mobilised into stormwater Noise is no longer attenuated by the building (for offsite sensitive receptors/neighbours) Wind becomes a factor The original approval was based on a controlled system. Moving outdoors changes how emissions behave and where they end up. Example 2 – Wastewater Reprocessing under ERA 55 You are approved to receive and reprocess wastewater in ponds. What was approved: A purpose-built pond with engineering design Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) completed Leak detection system installed Groundwater monitoring bores in place Defined and assessed allowable inputs You now want to construct another pond, or accept a slightly different input. Again, this appears similar. But, because you think you are already approved for this activity, you aren't putting together an EA application which steps through all the requirements, and therefore, some aspects get missed: If the new pond is missing any of those design or verification elements, seepage risk increases Without monitoring or leak detection, early warning systems are lost Different inputs may behave differently in storage or treatment (for example, odour risk) The original assessment of contaminants and volumes may no longer apply Even if the pond looks the same, the certainty of performance and level of risk is not the same. Example 3 – Other Activities under ERA 55 You are the same site as Example 2, already approved under ERA 55 to receive and reprocess wastewater in ponds. You now want to treat contaminated soils using stabilisation (e.g. lime dosing). It’s still ERA 55 — so it feels like you should be covered. But let's think about what was approved: Treatment of liquid waste in lined ponds Risks primarily related to odour, pond failure, seepage and groundwater What changes: Dust generation from handling soils Airborne contaminants and exposure pathway To be undertaken in an unlined, unbunded area Stormwater contamination from open treatment areas Land contamination risks Potential for offsite reuse (if uncontrolled, contamination of other sites) Same ERA — completely different risk. The original EA for wastewater ponds does not consider these impacts, so the new activity has not been approved. Why “Almost the Same” Isn’t the Same A key point that is often missed is this: Environmental risk is driven by more than just the activity itself. It is driven by: How emissions are generated How they are controlled The pathways they can travel The receptors they can reach Small changes to any of these can significantly change the outcome. Two activities that look identical operationally can have very different impacts once you consider odour, dust, surface water, noise, or groundwater pathways. When Do You Need an EA Amendment? As a general rule: Assume an EA Amendment is required. Request a pre-lodgement meeting, be clear about the change you are thinking of, and take guidance from the assessing officers. This is not a space for “we’ll just make the change and see how it goes”. Why It Matters Operating outside the scope of your EA is not just a paperwork issue. It can result in: Non-compliance with conditions Environmental harm or nuisance Regulatory action Be issued a stop works notice, essentially cutting off your source of income Costly and time-consuming remediation or retrospective approvals We often see sites end up in a far more difficult position trying to justify a change after the fact, rather than assessing it properly upfront. In Closing Your EA is not an approval for everything that falls under the ERA listed on your licence. It is approval for what you applied for — a specific activity, undertaken in a specific way, with specific controls. If those things change, your approval may no longer apply. That’s why the detail in your original EA application — and any amendments — matters. What you describe is what gets assessed, and ultimately, is what you are approved to do. If your operations are evolving, don’t assume you’re covered. Stop, assess the risk, and confirm whether an amendment is required. Give us a call to discuss your waste-related activities — whether it’s an original EA application or an amendment. Last updated 29 March 2026. This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.
By Lisel Dingley March 27, 2026
When is it a resource? When is it a waste? And what do you actually need to do? 
By Lisel Dingley November 19, 2024
Hypothetical Situation: A site’s Environmental Authority lists a number of groundwater bores, and states that they must be monitored for certain parameters 6 monthly. The EA has another condition which states that a groundwater review must be undertaken every 3 years by an appropriately experienced person (hydrogeologist). The site diligently samples the groundwater bores, and collates the field and laboratory results into a spreadsheet. However, those results are not reviewed when they are received… because the EA says that a groundwater review must be undertaken every 3 years, with no other specific review obligations. Given groundwater monitoring is intended as a warning system for contamination, is only reviewing the groundwater results every 3 years adequate to meet the General Environmental Duty of the Environmental Protection Act? Or a general EA condition such as the requirement to take all reasonable and practicable measure to prevent or minimise the likelihood of environmental harm being caused by the activities? When a dam containing hazardous waste is found to be leaking (found upon visual inspection), and subsequently the previous two years of groundwater data are reviewed and found to indicate this has been occurring prior to the visible leak being detected, it is likely this will not be looked upon favourably in a prosecution. “But it wasn’t time for our 3 yearly review!” is unlikely to be acceptable to the Regulator. Perhaps the EA has another condition which states that deterioration of groundwater quality must be reported to the Regulator within 14 days of receipt of the results. If data is only reviewed every 3 years, how is this condition being met? Perhaps the EA has a condition that requires the development and implementation of a Groundwater Monitoring Plan. It is suggested an adequate Groundwater Monitoring Plan should include guidance on interpretation of results, not just what, when and where to monitor. In our opinion, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan without interpretation guidance is defective and non-compliant with the intent of the condition. And if it does have guidance, is this clear enough to be accurately and swiftly executed by site personnel? We see many shortcomings in groundwater monitoring. Some of the most common and most significant include: · Data that clearly demonstrates potential environmental harm, which has not been noticed or investigated. There are some really easy ones in this space – your groundwater should not have PFAS in it! If it does, you either have identified contamination of the aquifer or contamination of your samples by your sampling methodology or the laboratory. Regardless, this should be promptly investigated. · Sites not being aware which of their bores is a leak detection bore and which are aquifer monitoring bores. One should be dry and the second should not be dry, and if this is not the case, this needs investigating. · Sites not having modelled groundwater flow direction to determine what is an upgradient (background) monitoring bore, and what is downgradient (identification) monitoring bore, and therefore not being able to interpret results adequately. · Not monitoring water quality in ponds that have the potential to leak, and therefore being unaware of the potential contaminants that would indicate seepage into the aquifer from the pond. Groundwater monitoring can be a highly effective detection system of potential environmental harm, but only if it is undertaken well, by persons with a comprehensive understanding of monitoring well construction, groundwater and contaminants, and with an adequate system of bores in place. Last updated 19 November 2024. This information is general in nature, may not be current, and may not be applicable to your specific circumstances. It should not be used as a substitute for site-specific professional advice.
More Posts